Phi for All

Since we don't know how you plan to use the power of the cannonball, it's hard to compare anything. The explosion seems too uncontrolled as you've explained it, but does seem more like an internal combustion system than a solar panel seems like a wind turbine.

Why would I attempt to discredit you personally? Everything I've said has been aimed at the statements and arguments you've made. Why do you feel like anyone needs to discredit you to show that a specific idea is weak, or needs shoring up? Oh, heavy sigh. That was my explanation of a strawman. I was pointing out that you were strawmanning others, so, um, that's why I didn't ask a question. OK? I'm truly sorry, please forgive me, but the ignorance is actually painful now. You need to understand what you're talking about. It's like you're walking into the locker room of the big NFL game and telling all the players that's it's so simple, that what they really need to do is score more baskets than the other guys.

Extra arms, definitely not, not the way you normally think of an arm. Arms need a whole lot of skeletal and muscular support to be effective as an arm. Wings are out, for the same reason, unless you're willing to give up your arms for the wings, as well as most of your body weight, including your big-ass brain. I don't think a human who could fly would be smart enough to be considered human. Better strength can be done now. Superhuman strength is also going to require superhuman skeletal and muscular systems, or you're just going to break yourself. Heightened senses, this seems like an area with some room for improvement. It'd be great to have the retina of the eye actually facing the light. I've always wanted to know if having a third eye in a triangular perspective might allow the brain to interpret visual information more accurately in 3D.

Seriously, this is getting to be a really bad habit, this strawman argument. Nobody here has said anything remotely like this, but you choose to ignore what they really said, and instead attack this man of straw you made up because he just stands there and takes it. Some kind of scarecrow screaming "Science has solved it all, we don't need your ideas anymore!" He's so easy to destroy because NOBODY IS SAYING THAT, so everyone agrees that the claim is silly. So much easier to deal with than what was actually said. Meanwhile, you think you've made an argument, and the person who asked you a completely different question gets ignored. Very frustrating, having to discuss anything with someone who strawmans. See if you can spot the strawman here, and you may get my drift about how frustrating it is: #1 - "This war is wrong, our leaders shouldn't have gotten us involved, we have no exit strategy, and it's bleeding our country dry." #2 - "Why don't you support our troops? They're over there fighting for you!" Anonymity won't help you at all without a good grasp of the basics of critical thinking. Even if nobody knows who you are, a lack of basic science skills is going to give you away.

Be careful, that kind of closed-mindedness might get you mistaken for an atheist.

Your posts don't really address anything people have been asking you and telling you, have you noticed that? If you really want to point out an upside to a disastrous situation, is it helpful to ignore criticism? You don't use the quote function to specifically address concerns, and you basically repeat the same things you said in the OP, without taking replies into consideration (at least not in print). You make obvious mistakes, they're corrected, but you never acknowledge them. In essence, you're preaching. This style is great for blogs, or the pulpit, where others really don't have much in the way of input, but it's really frustrating when used in a science discussion with other people. How about climbing down off the soapbox, and answer some specific questions and concerns that were put to you?

! Moderator Note Gator, this is a science site. It should come as no surprise that you can't state something is a fact and not have it challenged if there is the slightest question. Here, we don't use the term "logic" to mean, "this makes sense to me". Logic is a branch of math. What you're looking for, and failing to find, is critical thinking. Please provide supportive evidence for the things you assert as fact. If you don't, it's like running from a pack of wolves. Use your reasoning abilities, support your statements with evidence others can check, and you won't have all these problems. Right now though, you're trying to outrun the wolves instead of showing them you speak wolf. A response to this modnote is unnecessary, but you can report it if you think it's unfair.

I'm satisfied to leave it to those who determine laws and represent my wishes while doing so. I realize that all freedom has limitations, and it does me no good to demand the experience be somehow pure. In fact, if I just demand that I should be completely free to say anything I want, and don't allow for nuance and context, isn't that being quite closed-minded? Coincidentally(?), most of the things not covered by freedom of speech in the US ("I hate ALL purple people, and I want them killed!") are the epitome of closed-mindedness.

If a vaccine cures a million people but kills fifty, do you throw it out, or try to improve the odds? I think a few Galileo instances have been magically multiplied in the minds of many who fail a rigorous review, but since it's one of those conclusions that isn't really based on reality, people believe it more strongly the more you show evidence to the contrary. I think it's easy to ridicule, maybe too easy. I think it can be effective, but it's applied inappropriately too often (very limited analogy: you don't go around slapping people, but it might work if someone was hysterical). I also think too many people misconstrue disagreement with ridicule. If I show where you're wrong, I'm doing my job as a scientist, not making fun of you. That said, science should always be looking for ways to remove subjective factors, ways that we influence our hypotheses with our own biases. Anonymity could help in many situations, removing personal factors that could unfairly influence us. Here's what I think you're really asking about. You have some ideas but don't feel they're being given a fair assessment by scientists on this site. You feel you're being dismissed, and others are over-critical. But be honest. You didn't study much science in school, so you aren't really familiar with the methodology scientists use to assess an idea. It has to start with a good foundation, based on knowledge we already have and trust. If you showed up with bridge plans that didn't have enough support, you'd expect an engineer to tell you, right? So many people come here like you with an idea that seems so right to you, only to have a scientist tell you you forgot something very basic, so you're idea needs work. But what you hear is "YOU'RE WRONG", and it hurts because you've decided they're being dismissive. Science flourishes when as many people as possible share their knowledge and work towards explaining our universe in the most trustworthy way. But most ideas are wrong, and trained scientists learn to focus resources on ideas that have a chance at being right. And that training forces them to be especially critical about getting the basics right. Hey, I thought Strange had made it quite clear that none of this was enough to make him "upset". I hope you aren't trying to flame him for a reaction.

I'd really prefer that more people listen. It's a dying art. In case you didn't get the hint, you ignored my fire/theater example. Do you honestly support my right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded space as part of freedom of speech? I don't think you've thought this through. Should I be able to tell lies about you in the newspapers? Free speech! Even America has laws that prohibit my creating potentials for harm like that.

Great example! I argue that you're assigning complicated motives when people just want you to explain what you mean rationally, and instead of replying to my point, now you want us both to compile a list of insults gleaned from the boards and compare them. You'll notice this doesn't address my point. It looks like another Strawman argument (which, btw, doesn't mean, "You're wrong, asshole!", it means you're argument didn't address my question, and instead attacked a different position), or perhaps a Red Herring fallacy meant to distract so you don't have to offer a substantive answer. You know, one of the big mistakes many make is coming here to ASSERT their ideas, tell everyone how things really are. If the foundation of those assertions is flawed, anyone with critical thinking skills is going to want that shored up first, before we talk about anything else. If people would just ask questions instead, so much of this kind of crap would go away. Making a flawed assertion on a science site is like running from a pack of wolves, the response is practically guaranteed.

It's truly amazing how you can glean all that from people disagreeing with your ideas, showing you exactly why they disagree with your ideas, and asking you to maintain the same rigor in your replies instead of guessing and making stuff up.

Or... or, the good news is what really happened. We did enough good to offset some of the doom and gloom predictions for a while. We've pushed the timeline back because we're doing something, just not at the levels experts would like to see. And some predictions are worse than the originals. Are you pretending this is all happening in a vacuum? Are you seriously pointing at predictions made in the past and not accounting for what's been done since? You really need to work on your rigor. This is why I fail to see an upside to climate change. I'm not saying we shouldn't study it, but for the denial crowd facing so much intelligent argument, it's like a life preserver that keeps their ignorance afloat. "We don't need to do anything because it will all average out. Some will suffer, some will prosper."

That's an amazing thing to say! "I'm going to ignore filter those arguments I don't like because I want to be constructive and open-minded". I think you get this week's Irony Award.

See now, that's just ridiculous. A worthless emotional platitude that sounds great in your heart, but if you'd let it into your head long enough to filter out the crazy, you'd see that you don't want people yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, or any number of situations where allowing people to say anything they want, at all times, always, is inconsistent with public safety and personal privacy. This kind of bold assertion with bupkis to support it will always get you in trouble in a discussion with science-minded folks.

I think you misunderstand what's going on here. If the atheist is being rational (we already know the creationist isn't), he should be telling you why his arguments are superior in every way, having the great good fortune to match up with what we observe in reality. Typically, the creationist can't argue successfully with reasoned thought, so they pretend the atheist is calling himself superior instead of his arguments. It's a form of Poisoning the Well, trying to discredit through misunderstanding and misinformation.

This is a discussion, you made some assertions and they're being discussed. Since we're discussing ideas, not people, there's nothing to be offended by. What is this about? Who is censoring you? You didn't attribute this to anyone, so I'm curious where the paranoia is coming from. Or is this more dancing?

Evolution is a fact, we see it happening daily. Nothing you can say can change that. The Theory of Evolution, on the other hand, is probably one of the best supported theories in all of science. Despite your crude attempt to poison the theory by referring to one of it's early pioneers (a pretty typical, overused creationist tactic), it remains the best explanation for biological diversity in mainstream science. Where that sort of thing is studied extensively. What do you think the coin represents in this analogy? Because this is an incredibly easy thing to say, but I have no idea what you mean by it.

Your eagerness to make a flat joke has led you to mis-attribute the question. It was iNow's question, not mine, which you could have looked up, making this another attempt to dodge. You're quite the dancer. I believe he was asking if you think most people don't believe in Santa Claus because science can prove he doesn't exist. That's as simple as I can make it.

I think it's because of this bit of misunderstanding: Using the popular definition of creation here, I disagree completely with the first sentence. I could agree with the second, if by "hand in hand" you mean they cover completely difference aspects using almost exact opposite methodology, and only complement each other if one has a need for both perspectives, the rational and the faith-based.

Sensitive to the fact that you dodged the question completely, choosing instead to belittle. Did iNow touch a nerve?

And you disappoint me, sir, for not recognizing my response was aimed at the callous, "Others may be suffering, but I'm doing just fine with this" attitude of the OP. There are bound to be those who prosper from any horrible event, I just thought it was in extremely poor taste to try spinning it positively. Seems fairly hypocritical, looking at the accusations of media manipulation. Is it an emotional, knee-jerk response that tells me, but not you, it's a losing proposition to tell some people climate change will turn out well for them?

I firmly believe this is our destiny. We're the only species capable of taking more than ourselves off-planet (just to cover species that might survive an exploding Earth). This might be the only place life in such diversity exists (or at all). Smaller ships in larger quantities seems like a more viable strategy (fewer eggs in more baskets). And once we have more infrastructure off-planet, it won't tax Earth's resources to make this possible.

! Moderator Note OK. I offered. You've had two chances now. This isn't how science discussions work best. Thread closed.

So, you're saying there's some people who belong to a larger group of people who aren't behaving the way the whole group should behave? That's the focus? I certainly wouldn't have answered it. It was a stupid question. Just like, "Jagella, do you like asking stupid questions?" The answer to both is, "That's such a loaded question, I won't even dignify it with an answer". I didn't say it would prevent being ridiculous, I said it can help some people see how ridiculous they're being in certain situations. I got ridiculed for some behavior recently. I was being stubborn and foolish, I got called on it but kept up the stubbornness. The ridicule was shocking and effective. Like a slap in the face of a hysterical person, probably the only time I would condone violence on a non-violent person. It can be effective. Please take this the right way, but you have a real problem with taking something someone said about a specific situation, and applying it liberally to every situation. To repeat myself, I said ridicule wasn't 100% ineffective. Why do you misinterpret that to mean you should just ridicule me for no reason to prevent me from being ridiculed?